I don't see the inconsistency; can you point it out to me again, more specifically?

Since you insist on speaking to us as if we're not as intelligent, perhaps it would help to type slowly and use smaller words, to be sure we get your meaning.

We're not saying something is right or not because it's the law. We're saying that we think the law defines it well, and that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job in this case of defining things in a reasonable way. Most of the specific legal discussions were the result of Blowjob's attempt to insist that the law was on his side, in this discussion, when it obviously is not. It was a valid counter-point, and so I miss the reasoning behind your objection to our objections.

I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

So, I ask again: where is the inconsistency?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(23-08-2016 01:31 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: I'd be happy if you just realized you feelings and the whims of politics are not a good basis to form a moral judgement.

My position on abortion is first and foremost based on my religious convictions. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice.

Given that there's a religious procedure for conducting an abortion on an unfaithful wife in the book of Numbers, chapter five, I've always been amazed that the Christians can claim to be pro-life and Biblical literalists at the same time.

Then again, it has been argued that Paulianity Christianity is the corruption/abrogation of everything Judaism stands for, even from the beginning.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(23-08-2016 06:44 AM)Aliza Wrote: My position on abortion is first and foremost based on my religious convictions. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice.

Given that there's a religious procedure for conducting an abortion on an unfaithful wife in the book of Numbers, chapter five, I've always been amazed that the Christians can claim to be pro-life and Biblical literalists at the same time.

Then again, it has been argued that Paulianity Christianity is the corruption/abrogation of everything Judaism stands for, even from the beginning.

I think the procedure you're mentioning is not quite as clear cut as you're thinking, but there are times in Judaism when abortions are mandated. This is detailed in the Talmud.

Edit: I see though that you did specify that the Numbers procedure was 'religious' and not literal. My bad.

(21-08-2016 02:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Again my position is based on logic. An axiom of my morality in simplistic terms is "Do not kill another human being unless you have too". A human zygote is a human being. I have provided links showing that this isn't just my opinion but a consensus of science.

Bullshit. Your links show only that scientists define a zygote as a human "organism". You, and only you, assert that this is the same thing as a "human being". "Human being", as Loom has repeatedly pointed out, is a loaded term that means much more (to everyone except you) than the clinical term "human organism". You are equivocating. And as long as you continue to do so, you are being intellectually dishonest. You have "shown" or "proven" nothing. You are merely making assertions. We are not compelled to accept your assertions.

(21-08-2016 08:17 AM)Matt Finney Wrote: What about babies already born that have microcephaly?

Would you all be in favor of infanticide for babies with microcephaly? Why/why not?

When will you all understand that the abortion debate is simply a matter of personal preference? There is no right or wrong answer to this.

Blowjob makes a lot of sense on this thread. He's still wrong in thinking there is an answer to the question, but he's no more wrong than anyone else on this thread who thinks it's (objectively) immoral to deny a woman abortion rights. You're all fuckin' wrong!

Some people like to kill animals and eat them, some don't. It's really no different than the abortion debate. Some people like for women to be allowed to kill fetuses, some don't. At the end of the day, there's no right/wrong answer.

I have already said that I am personally uncomfortable with abortion, and become more so the farther along the pregnancy is. This is not a black and white issue for me. Heywood is the one pretending that it is, and being extremely intellectually dishonest with his arguments. The bottom line for me is that, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, the mother's needs trump those of the fetus (which is not yet a "baby" or "human being"). I respect her choice in the matter, and that's all. I am not pretending that her choice is always correct. Nuances, you know? Heywood is blissfully unaware of them.

(21-08-2016 10:40 AM)adey67 Wrote: I'm not going to play silly mind games with you read my previous posts carefully and it should be obvious that I am not advocating abortion above a certain number of weeks if I did not make that clear I apologise.

no need to apologize mate Serious question, what is the number of weeks that abortions becomes ethically wrong?

It makes a difference in both law and ethics once a baby is born and no longer dependent upon its mother for oxygenation / life support or capable of independent existence with or without support hence the words host dependent.

I disagree about the ethics part, but what about zika infected fetuses? Should they be treated differently than healthy fetuses? Should we be able to abort them later in pregnancy than healthy fetuses? And why?

And the stuff about food animals sorry it frankly ridiculous except perhaps to radical vegetarians or vegans and then maybe. Please choose your phrasiology a bit more carefully and above all do not attempt to teach grandad to suck eggs.

I only bring that up because it is another instance where humans have disagreements about the morality of killing things. My hope is that it helps people to see that it all actually only comes down to preference.

Can you please not do this "reply in red" thing? It's extremely hard to read. I can't see any of it without "expanding" the quote, and that just takes me back to the quoted post (without your comments). I have to do this several times before I can ever see your "reply in red", and it's a real pain in the ass. Just quote the post and add your replies outside the quote box like everyone else does -- please.

I don't see the inconsistency; can you point it out to me again, more specifically?

Since you insist on speaking to us as if we're not as intelligent, perhaps it would help to type slowly and use smaller words, to be sure we get your meaning.

We're not saying something is right or not because it's the law. We're saying that we think the law defines it well, and that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job in this case of defining things in a reasonable way. Most of the specific legal discussions were the result of Blowjob's attempt to insist that the law was on his side, in this discussion, when it obviously is not. It was a valid counter-point, and so I miss the reasoning behind your objection to our objections.

I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

We could even have a thread titled, RS....no infanticide for zika infected

Unless I'm mistaken, infanticide is legal in some countries in some circumstances. In those countries they could be having the same debate but instead of talking about abortion, they could be talking about infanticide. Perhaps some citizens would be opposed to infanticide even in cases of zika, those would be the rubio's of that country. The prochoicers here want Rubio to bend (make an exception) on abortions, but they themselves wouldn't bend on infanticide.

Again, if the reason we want Rubio to bend is due to suffering and money, couldn't that same exact argument be made in the case of infanticide? Some might ask the question "Couldn't we make an exception for infanticide regarding zika babies?"

You just have to realize that Rubio wants to avoid killing fetuses for the very same reason you want to avoid killing newborns. He considers them to be humans and he doesn't want to kill them. It doesn't make him an evil bastard IMO.

Can you please not do this "reply in red" thing? It's extremely hard to read. I can't see any of it without "expanding" the quote, and that just takes me back to the quoted post (without your comments). I have to do this several times before I can ever see your "reply in red", and it's a real pain in the ass. Just quote the post and add your replies outside the quote box like everyone else does -- please.

I don't see the inconsistency; can you point it out to me again, more specifically?

Since you insist on speaking to us as if we're not as intelligent, perhaps it would help to type slowly and use smaller words, to be sure we get your meaning.

We're not saying something is right or not because it's the law. We're saying that we think the law defines it well, and that the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job in this case of defining things in a reasonable way. Most of the specific legal discussions were the result of Blowjob's attempt to insist that the law was on his side, in this discussion, when it obviously is not. It was a valid counter-point, and so I miss the reasoning behind your objection to our objections.

I have certainly been consistent in pointing out that it does not matter if the fetus is a human, in terms of rights under law, but as Bucky was kind enough to spell out for us, there has never been a point where a fetus has been considered to be a human being with attached rights, other than those conveyed upon it by the mother. There is no precedent for the "Pro-Life" position, in law or culture. The born have rights; the developing fetus does not, and never has.

It is the "Pro-Life" who must make their case for why we should consider a fetus a full human being with attached rights, and I don't think they're even close to making their case, rather than bleating "but it's a baaaaaaaaby!" and variations thereupon. If we wanted to euthanize a born person because of their genetic (or in this case virally-altered genetic) deformities, the onus would be upon us to provide a reason to change the law and tradition regarding the rights of our fellow citizens.

We could even have a thread titled, RS....no infanticide for zika infected

Unless I'm mistaken, infanticide is legal in some countries in some circumstances. In those countries they could be having the same debate but instead of talking about abortion, they could be talking about infanticide. Perhaps some citizens would be opposed to infanticide even in cases of zika, those would be the rubio's of that country. The prochoicers here want Rubio to bend (make an exception) on abortions, but they themselves wouldn't bend on infanticide.

Again, if the reason we want Rubio to bend is due to suffering and money, couldn't that same exact argument be made in the case of infanticide? Some might ask the question "Couldn't we make an exception for infanticide regarding zika babies?"

You just have to realize that Rubio wants to avoid killing fetuses for the very same reason you want to avoid killing newborns. He considers them to be humans and he doesn't want to kill them. It doesn't make him an evil bastard IMO.

Ps, I didn't mean to imply you were stupid.

I can get into further later, don't have much time now.

Except infanticide is actually illegal and abortion is not. This isn't a matter of negotiation. Rubio may wish he could prevent abortion.... but in reality, he has no real authority.

(23-08-2016 07:51 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: Can you please not do this "reply in red" thing? It's extremely hard to read. I can't see any of it without "expanding" the quote, and that just takes me back to the quoted post (without your comments). I have to do this several times before I can ever see your "reply in red", and it's a real pain in the ass. Just quote the post and add your replies outside the quote box like everyone else does -- please.

ugh .... takes too much time, i'll try to make an effort though....

Well, just be advised that people may feel the same way about reading your replies; takes too much effort. If you can open and close color tags, then you can copy and paste quote tags.